How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Sat Oct 3 18:56:58 UTC 2015

How do you figure that?

Owen

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 04:14 , Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Philip Dorr" <tagno25 at gmail.com> 
> To: "Rob McEwen" <rob at invaluement.com> 
> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM 
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote: 
>> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: 
>>> 
>>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's 
>>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's 
>>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so 
>>> their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get. 
>> 
>> 
>> A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not the 
>> 256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit hoster 
>> assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of 
>> collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, should 
>> just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have a 
>> compromised system one day. 
> 
> As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a 
> minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a 
> /32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they 
> deserve all the pain they receive. 